It’s clear to me that, in general, U.S. journalists, editors and publishers don’t like Rupert Murdoch.
The U.S. newspaper industry is very parochial.
Go to the participant list of any big international newspaper conference outside the United States and you will find only a few people from this country.
Go to any of their domestic conferences and you’ll find hardly any speakers or presentations from other markets.
Our beloved Leo Bogart used to explain the reasons:
This has been a monopolistic business.
Making a lot of money.
Producing very mediocre news products.
Ruled by advertisers.
Selling the papers almost free.
When somebody comes here and wants to buy The Wall Street Journal, the industry pundits make astonishing “revelations” like this one: “He will control the editorial voice of the paper.”
Excuse me, but I have been reading the WSJ for many years and the “editorial voice” of the paper was, and is, one of the most right wing voices of the newspaper world.
But more than that: do you know, my friends, ANY newspaper owner that doesn’t control the “editorial voice” of his paper?
The Wall Street Journal under Rupert Murdoch will NOT be able to be more right wing than it is now.
But The Wall Street Journal under Rupert Murdoch will perhaps have a better multimedia and online strategy and business management.
And perhaps he will invest and re-invest some of the money that the Bancroft family is pocketing today from profits and dividends.
If I were a journalist or an editor at the WSJ I would not be worried about who controls the “editorial voice” of the paper, but about if the people who run the company have a serious multimedia and online strategy, are ready to invest a lot of money in that vision and keep the newsroom doing its job as well as it has been — including the “editorial voice” of the editorial pages.
Rupert never has been as right wing than they are now… thanks to the Bancroft family.